Yes there is a legal doctrine of "judicial notice" as it is called in Canada, whereby the court accepts the word of government officials on statements of fact under their area of responsibility. So if the Chief Medical Officer of Health says the jabs are safe and effective, that becomes legally true and not subject to challenge.
However there are some courts willing to question the doctrine when plaintiffs are respectful and sincere and thorough in their testimony and documentation.
Two family court judges, Justice Pazaratz and Justice Bennett were excoriated by the appeals court and Toronto Star because they ruled against the pro vaccine parent who wanted their kids vaccinated. Both Justices wisely claimed they had no evidence in front of them to prove the shots were safe. The appeals court slammed them for not going along with the chief medical officer of health.
...the highest courts in the land refuse to hear statements of facts...
Yes, because they know if they did, there could be only one outcome. There are many courts in the world, it only takes one to listen.
That is what Reiner Fuellmich thought, and he is in court now. But also in jail.
True, but that was a case of supposed financial irregularities, I don't think they heard evidence concerning the mRNA abominations.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi's 'antisemitism' case was kicked out pretty quickly by a German court.
The Helsinki case is a bit interesting, they heard some direct evidence of jab/lockdown harms.
The Costa Rica case??
The Florida Grand Jury??
They're certainly slow-walking these, but pressure is mounting every day.
Reiner Fullmich was fitted up. Greg Reese explains
https://rumble.com/v4pdnn0-greg-reese-the-illegal-abduction-and-pursuit-of-reiner-fuellmich.html
The Florida Grand Jury??
Question marks galore - get your fill at Kids, Covid, and Covid Vaccines.
https://darbyshaw.substack.com/
Yes there is a legal doctrine of "judicial notice" as it is called in Canada, whereby the court accepts the word of government officials on statements of fact under their area of responsibility. So if the Chief Medical Officer of Health says the jabs are safe and effective, that becomes legally true and not subject to challenge.
However there are some courts willing to question the doctrine when plaintiffs are respectful and sincere and thorough in their testimony and documentation.
Two family court judges, Justice Pazaratz and Justice Bennett were excoriated by the appeals court and Toronto Star because they ruled against the pro vaccine parent who wanted their kids vaccinated. Both Justices wisely claimed they had no evidence in front of them to prove the shots were safe. The appeals court slammed them for not going along with the chief medical officer of health.